WHAT! You’re dissing Jimmy, the elder statesman of the Democratic party!
But just consider all he achieved! If he had been President, no doubt he would have dealt with Saddam with the same crisp efficiency that he showed when he handled the Iranian hostage crisis. Not to mention his stellar achievement negotiating the 1993 North Korean nuclear treaty, which has been so outstandingly successful in curbing proliferation in the peninsula. And heaven knows the energy crisis of the 70s ended almost overnight when we all saw him wearing his sweater in the White House.
If only we had a President who still took foreign policy advice from an eight-year-old. Those were the days. Stagflation, lines at the gas pump, and Mr. Rogers in the Oval Office.
Zell’s traitorous speech is its own mark of dishonor. Carter is merely calling attention to the fact.
And Bricker, the Democratic Party has not strayed from Zell. Zell has strayed from the Democratic Party. One need only compare the texts of his 1992 Democratic Keynote and his 2004 Republican Keynote to see that.
You really can’t think of any better way to get Osama than to pull troops out and then do essentially jackshit? You’re getting very hard to consider reasonable with that.
What surrendered autonomy are you speaking of? And what is the cost of it? A thousand of our troops have died in this “cause”; what would you say to them?
What did you think when Cheney assured us “we’ll be greeted as liberators”, then?
If you slip that word “potential” in, you can say anything at all, can’t you? It conveniently excuses the user from assessing the facts on the ground irrespective of preconceptions. The *fact * was that Iraq was *not * such a staging area, and furthermore that Saddam did *not * trust Osama and Osama hated Saddam. Facts. Not “potential”. Please.
On to Sudan! Burma, buckle up! Gotta prioritize in the real world, though. If that was a fundamental factor in the decision and not just window-dressing, we’d be in a hell of a lot of other places first. But it was just a selling point, wasn’t it? As for whether or not the people of Iraq really are better off, that’s up to them to decide, and the few polls taken there are pretty much equivocal on the point. But they’re “potentially” better off, so that’s that.
Perhaps some consideration of the reasons you’re given in contradiction would be useful to you. If you simply refuse to acknowledge anything that might be to the contrary, you’re wasting as much of your own time here as we are trying to engage you.
There are many, many assessments from those who spend their lives on the problem to the contrary. But it’s good to know they’re simply wrong because you say they are.
Now we’re getting somewhere. But you approve of what they did, damn the facts, full speed ahead, anyway? That does not follow. What does follow from the increasing disconnect from your solid faith in Bush and the facts that you acknowledge should be interpret the other way is that you’re engaging in simple partisanism, not debate.
Please give generously to the Humor Impairment Foundation.
You seem unaware, btw, that Zell Miller is leaving the Senate at the end of the year anyway, making discussion of his “honor” just so much bleating. The assessment of the popular support of any party-changer depends on state-level politics, since you’re determined to bring that up - which you didn’t AFAWK when Nelson and Campbell and Gramm pulled their own switches the other way, huh?
You Carter-bashers might think a little longer about security in the Middle East when you consider who’s been the only world leader to negotiate a lasting nation-to-nation peace treaty there. North Korea, btw, was not working actively on nuclear weapons “program related activities” until Bush decided to shit on our diplomacy with them.
You keep repeating the fallacious implication that what Zell fundamentally disagrees with the Democrats on is this issue of security even though I have shown you, and you haven’t disputed, that Zell has broken with the party on basically all issues ranging from economics (the Bush tax cuts) to the environment.
The reason I keep emphasizing this is that I am guessing that you and your Republican breathren seem to feel that the story works better if one perceives Zell as having broken over just this one issue because then it is easier to make the case that the party abandoned him rather than the other way around and to emphasize this whole national security / fear / war hysteria that the Republicans are running on. (For similar reasons, it has been noted by some that the Republicans cherry-picked what they said Kerry voted against on the basis of his voting against a few of the defense appropriations bills [while voting for many more] during his tenure in the Senate. If they really wanted to follow their logic through to its obvious conclusion, they could just say that Kerry voted against having a funded military at all…But they know that people wouldn’t buy that. They have to keep their lies believable.
Well, I don’t recall any Democrats on this board saying that Miller should resign his seat and seek re-election as a Republican (although maybe a few have?). I don’t even see Carter saying that part about resigning his seat. Personally, I don’t think that is necessary. However, it seems like he should honestly admit that he is basically a Republican now (and seek re-election next time on the Republican ticket if he were not planning to retire). But, more importantly, he should just not make up this whole story about how the Dems have abandoned him rather than he abandoning them and then make up all these lies and deceptions to support it.
Sorry to be delayed in getting back to this, but here you go. Oh, first, the issue of unilateral action wasn’t necessary then, because we hadn’t yet alienated our allies, nor were we doing something that our allies thought was complete bullshit.
Well, since I offered it to show that conservatives are not made particularly welcome here, the fact that it’s a joke doesn’t change that.
A pattern of making jokes at the expense of conservative positions, values, and leaders certainly would contribute to a feeling of exclusion, wouldn’t you say?
But you may argue that one joke is not a pattern.
And I would point out in return that it’s NOT isolated – that such remarks, “jokes” or not, are made all the time around here, and no one bats an eye.
Proving that would, of course, require that I go back and pick out the remarks along with a URL that points to them. That’s a fair amount of work to do to prove a point that, quite frankly, I would simply hope an intellectually honest debater would concede.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5233141&postcount=24
It really is a disgusting affront to decency and integrity. Sadly, it’s what I’ve come to expect from GWB. He personifies the old saying, “You know how you can tell when George W. Bush is lying? His lips are moving.” Really, really pathetic. And frighteningly, stupid people all over this country are falling for it.
I thought I had heard Zell Miller’s speech before. I think he just substituted a few words and phrases. Here are some excerpts from the original German; it sounds better that way. Josef Geobbels’ famous Sportapalast “Total War” speech
In GD: “According to the Lovenstein Institute, Democratic presidents over the last 50 years have been more intelligent than their Republican counterparts, with GWB dumbest of all.
Here’s the full list with IQs first: … 91 George W. Bush (R)”
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5155191&postcount=25
I’ve also heard McKinney floated some conspiracy theories about the 9-11 attacks – I mean, of course it was a conspiracy, but I mean theories that the Bush Admin might have intentionally allowed it to happen – and I certainly would not class her as a “raving lunatic” based on that!
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5245231&postcount=52
Responding to an OP about the value of third-party votes: The point of this OP is not to discuss third party voting. [The OP’s] post is meant to establish “Kerry cannot win” as conventional wisdom. He’s just doing his part to perpetuate the meme like a good little soldier.
Who said anything about UN or NATO “leadership”? We managed to form a cooperative coalition in Afghanistan and still maintain our leadership role just fine. I could possibly understand your argument better if it were based on reality and not speculation. The reality is, we had international cooperation and support. It benefitted us, the Afghani people, our goals and the international goal of ridding the world of terrorist threats, to have that cooperation. And, with the exception of some poor strategic decisions (see Tora Bora), it worked. Yet, we did the exact opposite in Iraq and it has been, by every standard I’ve seen, an almost complete failure.
What a ridiculous strawman! And you know it.
I realize that there are allegations floating around out there that would paint John Kerry as a liar. As of this time, not a single one of those allegations has withstood close scrutiny, let alone been proven true. George W. Bush, on the other hand, has a proven track record of lying. Repeatedly. As does his administration. Not just acting in good faith on what ultimately turned out to be bad information, but outright lies and deceptions. Subterfuge and threats. This administration is guilty of intentionally withholding critical information from Congress in order to see their version of the Medicare bill passed, and high ranking officials have committed the criminal act of offering a bribe to a congressman on the House floor. The corruption in this administration is rank. There is absolutely nothing they can say to me, now or ever that I will believe on faith. So when an investigation reveals that inside sources claim that the Bush administration killed several Pentagon plans to go after a known terrorist and his training camp in lieu of targeting Sadam Hussein, I believe it.
In every measurable way, John Kerry proves to be much stronger on defense and on actually fighting terrorism than George W. Bush. Any other interpretation of the evidence can only be arrived at by a “gut sense,” rather than an examination of the facts.
Are you serious? This is your laundry list of cruel taunts?
Well, I guess it makes sense. Most bullys do run away blubbering when you hit back.
(It does seem incredibly telling that BushCo supporters [please note the distinction I’m making] feel unwelcome in a place that is devoted to battling ignorance. It isn’t like a call went out to all the Mother Jones subscribers to sign up at the Straight Dope and harass the right. It evolved this way organically.)
Really? So Saddam is still in power in Iraq? The US and its allies don’t control any of the country? There is no independent government there? The perceived threat has not been eliminated? The stealing from the oil-for-food program continues unabated? Saddam and his sons are still kidnapping and raping women, and feeding their opponents into plastic shredders?
Cite? Please include whatever documentation you have on the grand jury indictment and/or conviction of this criminal offense.
So you are alleging that you would have supported an attack on Iraq earlier than it actually occurred? So you don’t object to the invasion itself, only the timing - is that it?
So if Bush had attacked in 2002, you would have been all over the boards praising him, right?
What kind of measurable ways do you mean - recorded votes? Support for military action? Actually sponsoring legislation aimed at attacking international terrorism?
I offered those quotes not as a “laundry list” – which implies some sort of complete or exhaustive list – but rather as a representative sample. And I offered it in support of the contention that conservatives are not made to feel as welcome here as liberals.
Your response appears to acknowledge that this is so, but justifies this unwelcoming attitude on the grounds that conservatives are “bullys” [sic] and thus deserving of such scorn.
Is this an accurate interpretation of what you said?
I do note the distinction. To my way of thinking, there is a dramatic difference between three main categories: (1) lambasting Mr. Bush or the administration, (2) lambasting all those that support him over his challenger, and (3) lambasting all those that identify as conservative or Republican.
Cruel taunts and harsh jokes directed at (1) are, of course, not nearly as valuable in fighting ignorance as calm, reasoned debunking of the policies in question. But since political debate can easily become rancorous, I regard these as only slightly problematic.
When the target is (2), it’s a bit more serious, and when the target is (3), it’s prima facie what I was observing: the board is unwelcoming to conservatives.
I agree it evolved this way organically. But the reason it evolved this way is not simply that the left’s positions are more secure in the fight against ignorance than the right… it evolved this way because the initial population of the board was weighted towards the left, and that weighting has simply reinforced itself over the years. The board started by leaning left, and remained self-selecting for that property.
Define “independent.” And are they at all effective?
Nope.
This makes the world more safe from terrorism, how, exactly?
Cite about the plastic shredders (which you already know has been roundly debunked).
See this post (I’m not reposting the entire thing here, especially given that cross-posting is against the rules). And give me a break with the need for indictments or convictions nonsense. Investigations are supposedly ongoing, and you know damn well that just because no one’s been convicted yet doesn’t mean the crime wasn’t committed. We have Rep. Smith’s own words attesting to the bribe:
No. I would have supported an attack on Zarqawi’s terrorist training camps, which happened to be in Kurdish controlled Northern Iraq, exactly as I supported the attack on Osama bin Laden’s terrorist training camps which happened to be in Afghanistan.
Taken literally, it is indeed a starwman. But it was merely a comment intended to point out that terrorist funding needs are on a different scale than full-blown military operations, and cutting funding in the manner you suggested was not as serious a blow as you suggested.
I don’t know if I’ve made this explicitly clear before, so let me now: I don’t think for a moment John Kerry is a liar. I regard him as a war hero and a man of good faith.
OK - what criminal bribe was offered by what high-ranking official to what congressman?
You show me Bush committed this act and my support for him vanishes.
Stoid, Bricker, the rest of you, “the posters on this message board are biased against conservatives vs. ARE NOT!” is not a Great Debate. Take it to the Pit if you want to discuss it further; anything that is solely accusing/defending the opinions and posts of a particular bunch of posters on a particular message board is more of a personal issue than a great debate.
See above. Click the link contained therein and listen to Rep. Smith (R-Mich) say so himself. And then tell me if you honestly think that any of this went on right under Bush’s nose, without his knowledge. Keep in mind that the administration has already acknowledged that they even knew threats were being made against the Medicare actuary to withhold vital information in order to get this bill passed…
You claimed the conquest of Iraq was a complete failure. Now you are saying that its main objective was achieved, but that it was a failure nonetheless.
Tell you what - when you decide where you finally want the goalposts, you let us know.
I would say that when the US conquers a country, captures their dictator, and revamps their government, that this would constitute “control”.
So you think they still might be trying to develop nukes, or attacking Kuwait and Iran. Or maybe you think they are still not cooperating with the inspection regime.
Or maybe you are just playing games with definitions.
By removing one of its sources, refuges, and supporters.
The scruple does you justice. Your unconvincing cite does not, because it states;
IOW, you have no evidence of any criminal activity, no evidence of any involvement by Bush or any member of his staff, or much else at all. Just a slanderous accusation that somebody pulled out of her ass.
No, we don’t.
How about a need for some credible evidence? See if you can come up with some.
Because I know damn well that just because the usual suspects are slinging the usual shit, that doesn’t mean that anything real has happened.
Politically motivated slander. As if that were anything new.
You aren’t making any sense. You don’t support an attack on Iraq, just an attack on Iraq.
See if you can make up your mind what you support, and what you attack, and then get back to us.
Even disregarding Rep. Smith’s later recantation, the most a finder of fact could possibly conclude from this evidence is that some person or persons attempted to bribe him. Smith explictly denies it was Hastert, Thompson, or DeLay. For all we know, it could have been a member of industry that stood to benefit from the bill’s passage.
Your attempt to make me believe that it was a member of the Bush administration is ludicrous. You cannot point to a single shred of evidence that identifies a member of the Bush administration. Smith’s press release does does say:
Even taking that in the most favorable light possible, there is no mention of an illegal inducement.
If anything illegal went on, I’m sure it was without Mr. Bush’s knowledge or involvement. And to accuse someone of a criminal act, you need something well beyond vague inferences. The evidence above couldn’t even get someone indicted, much less convicted.
Discussions with you about the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have revealed that you are passionate about the accuracy of information and a zealous advocate for your side. This latest accusation, without even flimsy evidence to support it, is quite surprising and vitiates your position as an honest broker of information.
No I didn’t. I said that our invasion was “almost complete failure.” It would help you understand my position if you’d read what I actually write and not merely what you want to see. The actual capture of Saddam was about the only thing that went according to plan, or that could be considered a “success.” Pretty much everything else has been a complete clusterfuck. The interim government in impotent, the Iraqi people see us as occupier and not liberators, people (ours and theirs) are still being killed every day, our Secretary of Defense authorized interrogation methods that violated the Geneva Conventions and dozens of prisoners were severely abused under his command/watch and so on and so on and so on.
First of all, there you go using that word ‘conquer’ again. Was ‘conquering’ Iraq really our goal? Secondly, the mere fact that we ‘conquered’ them, hardly supports the idea that we actually have any control over there.
Same old, same old crap that’s been disproven over and over. I’m not going to go there again.
Or maybe you are.
You’re skating really close here, Shodan. I pulled nothing out of my ass, which you would know if you had honestly read the source documents and LISTENED TO REP. SMITH’S OWN WORDS. He tried to back out of his claim, but he couldn’t, because they got him on tape.
Are you being deliberately obtuse here?
Since when is a PERSON’S OWN WORDS – THEIR VOICE ON TAPE – not credible evidence??
And just because the usual apologists deny, deny, deny, doesn’t mean that nothing real has happened.
I’m making perfect sense, you just seem to want to twist my words. I’ll thank you not to.
Oh, please. We have the guy saying that pressure was brought to bear by “leadership” because their “prestige” was at stake. “Arm-twisting.” “They” didn’t have the vote. There is no other “they” than the administration. “They” could not possibly be referring to anyone from some “industry,” even by the most generous reading. He was asked, specifically, how he communicated with the president, and his response was to explain how he’d been offered a bribe and then, when he didn’t accept it, his son’s campaign was threatened. Yeah, “industry” folks threatened his son’s campaign. Right. His denials after-the-fact are meaningless when we have his original statement on tape. His refusal to name names doesn’t mean it didn’t happen exactly as he originally said it happened. We’ve just yet to learn how far up the ladder this fish stinks.
But go on living in your fantasy world that Bush is above this kind of behavior. He’s already admitted to the findings of the GAO, that charge him with intentionally obstructing Congress and threatening the job of the Medicare actuary. That you can tolerate this vile behavior in your president is appalling.
"